Net neutrality

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I am not sure what you are asking. Perhaps we leave the steel industry out of this and just focus on the internet?



Nobody knows what the future holds, post NN. What we do know at least IMO, is the Internet has been working pretty good since day 1, and I see no need to make big changes, and the last thing change I want is to allow it to be run by the cable companies. They already screwed up cable, now they are going after internet.

But I could be wrong, maybe they will make it better, faster all while making it cheaper.

Funny, but when a common carrier like UPS blocks access (no machine guns) or charges a premium (handguns must go over night), folks go bat-shit crazy. But somehow it is OK for the cable companies to run the internet the same way?

Thanks, I do think a big problem is that as you stated, no one really knows what will happen- and there are no good analogies- it is what it is and it ain’t anything else.

Of course, if the ISPs act badly, I can’t see them being able to stop congress from acting. I would think that standard anti-trust law still applies?

[tb-av]

Back to my first post in this thread, it is not a free market. A free market requires low barriers to entry which this is definitely not.

... and back to my unanswered questions......

Will quantum computing have an impact?

Will wireless have an impact

Is this a market endeavor, that will have an impact?
https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/...t-service.html

It seems you guys are suggesting the Internet should be the way it was the day it was invented and no one is looking at emerging technologies. I just find it hard to believe we are stuck here and now with what we have and I've never know the .gov to make things better. They take a little today and little tomorrow. Next year they have a lot.

Of all things, technology, and you guys are basically saying it's nope, game over, you want on the Internet and now they can control your mind.

I just think that sounds like BS. There has to be someone that will develop a new way and why would you want the .gov in control of how it has to play out.

All that aside from the fact I don't believe Comcast is out to get me.

[skywalkrNCSU]

Even with NN there is still plenty of incentive for innovation, especially in the wireless space. We just haven’t produced technology that is worth the cost if you have access to landline based service. There are many areas that have one ISP, others that might have two big players and some regional ones. If someone could develop wireless technology that provided high speeds, stable performance, no data caps, at a reasonable price people would leave Comcast, Verizon, Spectrum, and AT&T in droves. People loathe those companies and are dying for an alternative and that is why people are so excited for Google Fiber in area where they are working on it.

They are rolling it out to San Antonio and people can’t wait to dump the traditional ISP’s but it is taking FOREVER and the availability is nowhere near as broad as they hoped it would be because it is so expensive and difficult to roll out. If they could accomplish the same thing via wireless the infrastructure demands would be a drop in the bucket comparatively. NN isn’t what is stopping companies from pursuing that but our technological capabilities are.

Without NN ISP’s will be able to charge more for less so if anything it would provide less incentive for current ISP’s to innovate since it is not a free market.

[Dist. Expert 26]

To piggyback on the above post, I think wireless is the way of the future for all but the heaviest users. The cost of building a new cell tower is a drop in the bucket when compared to running fiber optic. Because the cost is lower, the barriers to entry are significantly easier to overcome.

[Renegade]

To piggyback on the above post, I think wireless is the way of the future for all but the heaviest users. The cost of building a new cell tower is a drop in the bucket when compared to running fiber optic. Because the cost is lower, the barriers to entry are significantly easier to overcome.

I am in rural area (no cable options) and on wireless and get 50 mbs, with 200 mbs expected by end of next year.

[Dist. Expert 26]

I am in rural area (no cable options) and on wireless and get 50 mbs, with 200 mbs expected by end of next year.

Same. It doesn't hurt that I can see the cell tower on the other side of the valley, but I get WAY better speed than I could ever hope for with satellite.

With 5G networks on the way I think wired internet will become largely obsolete just like land line phones.

[skywalkrNCSU]

My parents have a place out in the country and their only options are satellite (which is expensive and if you go over 2GB gets REALLY expensive real quick), using your cellphone as a hotspot with less than LTE speeds, or because they have a line of sight to a tower they can beam a signal directly to their house. They use the last option because it’s cheaper and has no data cap but they don’t really get more than 10 MB speeds. Gets the job done but if they weren’t in the line of sight they would not have any good options.

I absolutely think wireless is the future though but we have a ways to go before we get there.

[VARIABLE9]

Key item - "those who request it". I'm sure we are moving closer to 1984 and Big Government having an all seeing eye now that NN passed. That's JMO.

It's not a secret.

Here's the deal. You sign a contract with the ISPs when you agree to their Terms Of Service.

It's not an encroachment upon your 4th and 5th amendment protections when they turn your data over willy nilly to whomever requests it, be said entity public or private.

Play in someone else's sandbox; live by someone else's rules.

I trust the boys in DC and at Fort Meade with my information far more than I do Comcast or Verizon.

Just sayin'.

[kwelz]

I am in rural area (no cable options) and on wireless and get 50 mbs, with 200 mbs expected by end of next year.

What is the latency and Jitter? That is extremely good speeds for wireless. And that is the kind of technology we need to see.

A couple more things if anyone is actually still reading details. Nothing in the Net Neutrality rules stated the kind of service. SO emerging carrier technology has no impact. Send the signal over wireless, COAX, POTS, fiber, or something completely different, it doesn't matter. It just says that if you provide the service it must be open an equal.

Now I am curious as to why people think that somehow stifles innovation or will cause fa slowdown int he development of new technology. I hear that line all the time but have seen nothing that supports it. Event he examples that Pai tried to use ended up being lies. Not even misunderstandings but blatant lies. So can anyone explain that reasoning?

[tb-av]

Even with NN there is still plenty of incentive for innovation,

Maybe I can try it this way.....

I am not an opponent of NN per se. Nor am I totally convinced it's the right thing.

I have asked... with the advent of quantum computing, AirGig, IR and other wireless technology..... which are all acknowledged innovations. Will they create more ISP competition? Varied ways for us to have access. That is question 1 Would a reasonable person, in light of innovations, expect ISP competition or a new dynamic in Internet access?


I have asked about the comfortable dynamic between politics and the alphabet soup media. I would find it incredibly difficult to assume they are just sitting idly by twiddling their thumbs as they watch the Internet crush their power base of influence. They own the TV Broadcast market and to me it would seem only logical that they too would want to have that same influence on the Internet. They got where they are under the FCC. Seems a friendly arrangement. Question 2 - Why should we have no concern with regard to .gov + regulation + history.

... and finally I have zero concern how any of this impacts someone today. I am wondering with NN or without, what will things be like in say 20 years.

I have read pro and con opinions on the matter but no one really seems to be able to come up with a convincing over view. Also no one seems to want to admit that everyone is in it for themselves which again is politics as usual.

Here is a link to an over view of two pro / con opinions. I will admit, I can see the NN side and it sounds reasonable but I also see where we are now with the 'old school way'. We have Google collecting and pushing us in directions they choose. We have ISPs that charge the same prices for the same thing. We have businesses that built themselves up over time and are now being told by supposedly We The People that ok, we'll take control of that now. To me the latter sounds like a form of imminent domain without just compensation..... and again the .gov is famous for that.

So with those specifics in mind. Can someone convince me we are not burning witches?

Here is the link I mentioned. In fact they have many good articles. M4C requires I post a paragraph or so on this link. The are basically the FCC of this forum which I often forget. I feel that I have addressed the link I am about to post and that anyone reading this thread would gather that as well. But.. in keeping with the rules.....

The link will discuss some of the following presented here as excerpts and more information regarding Net Neutrality.

The stakes are rising with the promise of new Net applications, such as communication among autonomous vehicles. Also at stake is the future of wire-line telephone service,

The fundamental technical challenge is getting the Net to carry traffic that it was never meant to handle. Internet packet switching was designed for digital file transfers between computers, and it was later adapted for e-mail and Web pages. For these purposes the digital data does not have to be delivered at a specific rate or even in a specific order, so it can be chopped into packets that are routed over separate paths to be reassembled, in leisurely fashion, at their destinations.

By contrast, voice and video signals must come fast and in a specific sequence.

Perhaps I am wrong but a lot of what I read does not seem to point to the "equal packet theory" but rather inequality of Internet traffic is a necessity.

The packet coding built into LTE and VoLTE is a different matter because that traffic goes over wireless networks, which do have limited internal capacity. The LTE packet coding standard reflects the mobile environment and the introduction of new services. It assigns a special priority code to real-time gaming traffic, which requires very fast transit times to keep competition even. It also divides video into two classes with distinct requirements.

Those excerpts are from 2015 in this link --- https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/in...nical-troubles

This link is an opinion up to the minute and has a direct link for a case against NN and a case for NN.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/...net-neutrality

Everything seems a whole more complicated to me than simply the Internet is supposed to be equal for all.